Assessing the effectiveness of specially protected areas for conservation of Antarctica's botanical diversity

• Published in: Conservation Biology
• Main Authors: Hughes, Kevin A., Ireland, Louise C., Convey, Peter, Fleming, Andrew H.
• Other Authors: Natural Environment Research Council core funding to the British Antarctic Survey, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office through the British Antarctic Territory Strategic Project Funding initiative
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2015
• Subjects: Antarctic; The Antarctic; Antarc*; Antarctica; Arctocephalus gazella
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12592; https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fcobi.12592; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/cobi.12592/fullpdf

Abstract Vegetation is sparsely distributed over Antarctica's ice‐free ground, and distinct plant communities are present in each of the continent's 15 recently identified Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs). With rapidly increasing human activity in Antarctica, terrestrial plant communities are at risk of damage or destruction by trampling, overland transport, and infrastructure construction and from the impacts of anthropogenically introduced species, as well as uncontrollable pressures such as fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella) activity and climate change. Under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, the conservation of plant communities can be enacted and facilitated through the designation of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs). We examined the distribution within the 15 ACBRs of the 33 ASPAs whose explicit purpose includes protecting macroscopic terrestrial flora. We completed the first survey using normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) satellite remote sensing to provide baseline data on the extent of vegetation cover in all ASPAs designated for plant protection in Antarctica. Large omissions in the protection of Antarctic botanical diversity were found. There was no protection of plant communities in 6 ACBRs, and in another 6, <0.4% of the ACBR area was included in an ASPA that protected vegetation. Protected vegetation cover within the 33 ASPAs totaled 16.1 km 2 for the entire Antarctic continent; over half was within a single protected area. Over 96% of the protected vegetation was contained in 2 ACBRs, which together contributed only 7.8% of the continent's ice‐free ground. We conclude that Antarctic botanical diversity is clearly inadequately protected and call for systematic designation of ASPAs protecting plant communities by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, the members of the governing body of the continent.